Subject: CAP / Busytime Restart

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:43:57 -0500

In trying to take a step back some background checking was in order.  Back 
in CAP-03 we had:

[Editor's notes: Issues:
freebusy - a cap server should dynamically calculate
freebusy information - we recommend that you cannot create,
modify, or delete freebusy composers ]

and

9.1.54.    VFREEBUSY schema
  An implementation may not actually have a VFREEBUSY table
as   the
  information may be produced dynamicly. However a CS MUST
appear to
  provide this table as this may be how a CUA chooses to
query     for
  VFREEBUSY information while using [CAP].

In CAP-05 another issue was added:

   [EDITORS NOTE: Issues:
[Snip]
      - We should not be able to delete any VFREEBUSY components?

Somehow all this text was removed from CAP in CAP-06 without any WG 
discussion and I now find:

   It is important to note that scheduled components do not show up in
   busy time as BUSY.  Only when they are booked does the TRANSP:OPAQUE
   property take effect.  A CS implementation MAY mark the time as
   TENTATIVE.

This new text implys that the CS does the busytime maintenance and NOT 
anyone else but its not made clear or definitive. 

So sometime between July 2001 and Nov 2001 the Issue got quietly removed 
and we are now left floundering.  Unfortunately the latest CAP-10 Draft 
has loss even more text and the result is the current confusion.

I think we should reinstate the Editors text as Draft Text and clearly and 
unambiguiously specify _THE_ way that busytime lookups are to be done in 
CAP and then we can go to Last Call!

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:22:30 -0500

> discussion and I now find: 

[...]

> I think we should reinstate the Editors text as Draft Text and clearly 
> and unambiguiously specify _THE_ way that busytime lookups are to be 
> done in CAP and then we can go to Last Call! 

I agree--unless someone can find evidence that WG discussion occurred 
after all.  (No slam on Bruce here; the mailing list archive isn't that 
easy to search.  Someone who remembers the discussion, if there was one, 
or whoever removed the text, might know better what to search for.)

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:01:44 -0500

John wrote on 04/04/2003 08:22:30 AM:
> easy to search.

None taken.  I have a personal archive of nearly all WG traffic going back 
to BOF days at Netscape.  Im sure I missed one or two msgs here or there 
over 6+ years but its virtually complete (AND its fully threaded!). 

Unfortunately I no longer have the ability to host that outside the 
Intranet (IBM security policy) so Ive given it to Pat.  Perhaps she can 
host it and the FT index so that anyone else can search as they like. 

If anyone out there has a Notes server and has ~190M of free disk Ill be 
happy to FTP it to ya...

Bruce